By Jennifer Eisenbart
Editor
When the City of Burlington raised its water rates in February of 2011, it came with the caveat that the city would likely be looking at another increase within a few years.
That time has come.
On Tuesday at the City Council Committee of the Whole meeting, council members discussed a simplified rate increase of 3 percent.
In 2011, the city raised its water rates 27.3 percent. It was one of three options considered, the first being a 19 percent increase, the other being a 36 percent increase.
The lone dissenting vote at the time was Alderman Katie Simenson, who felt the rate increase wasn’t going to be enough to fund all the capital improvements that were coming – including the construction of radium removal systems on city wells No. 9 and 10.
But while the middle of the three options passed, Utility Rate Consultant John Mayer also recommended the city apply for the simplified rate increase in 2013 – provided that the city qualified.
The Public Service Commission allows for the simplified rate increases – which do not require a public hearing – to keep pace with normal and ordinary cost increases, according to the city packet issued for Tuesday’s meeting.
Craig Workman, director of public works, worked out a rate increase summary, which was also included in the packet. According to him, the typical family of four – consuming 60 gallons a day, per person – will be looking at an increase of $3.22 per quarter.
Broken down, that is an increase of $1.74 for consumption charge increases, 69 cents in fire protection charge increases and 79 cents in water service charge increases.
Concerns were raised by the council Tuesday evening in regard to the need for the increase and whether Burlington was in line with other communities in the area.
Alderman Tom Preusker, who said his bill is about $240 per quarter for a family of five (including water and sewer), wanted more information.
“I’d like to know more of how our rates compare with other communities,” he said.
And Alderman Tom Vos felt the cost increases were the result of mandates being dictated to the city by various government agencies, specifically with the radium removal and now the possibility of phosphorous removal.
“Those are all mandates shoved down our throats by the DNR,” Vos said. “We need to get back to our legislative people and let them know (about the costs the city is incurring).”
City Administrator Kevin Lahner promised to have numbers on capital needs for the city for the council’s Sept. 17 meeting.
-
-
-
-
-